Re: Changing @Use semantic

[Jeff Kingston]

Uwe wrote:
------------------------
I thought about something like
 
    @SysInclude { book }        # document type
    @SysInclude { tables }      # @IncludeAndUse for tab
    @SysInclude { diagrams }    # @IncludeAndUse for diag
    @SysInclude { graphs }      # @IncludeAndUse for graph
------------------------
 
Jeff's response:
 
This reduces the number of setup files to the number of packages,
which is an improvement I agree.  It's also a better design than
what we have now, in that new packages can be added without
modifying existing setup files.

The implementation would be very easy.  Just allow @Use 
to be interleaved with top-level definitions (perhaps insisting
that its scope-opening effect not come into force until after
the last definition).  Then (e.g.) file diagrams becomes
 
    @SysInclude { diag }
 
    @Use { @DiagramPrint
      # the usual myriad options
    }

The main disadvantage I see with this is that users have to
get a separate setup file every time they want to modify the
setup of some package.  I think it's very convenient to have
all setup information in a single file (one can even put one's
definitions in the current setup files, by replacing the
@Include { mydefs } line with them).

I wonder what others think about this issue of a setup file
per package vs. a single setup file.

Jeff